Carter

I feel as though the first amendment is protecting religion from the state. If the government were to make it so that nobody could practice their religious beliefs then I feel that majority of the country would find some form of rebellion. However, I feel that the separation of religion and state is what is protecting religion. I think that it gives people the right to practice what their religion is, without getting grief that their religion is not the majority in this country. Though it seems that majority of the country is of Christian decent, there are several other religions that take part in this country as well. That is what makes this country so great. People all over the world come here to make their lives better, and religion is a part of many people’s lives. The government cannot simply take away religion, because it is mainly a belief system. Though many religions practice rituals regularly, many do not. People of the Islamic religion for example, practice rituals five times a day. They pray five times a day towards Mecca, but at their own discretion. They are not required to go to a Mosque five times a day because for many people that is impractical because of work, school, and other things that go on in every day life. Another example of ritual is people of the Catholic religion. Strict Catholics go to mass at least once a week. People of the Hindu religion however do not practice rituals regularly, and when they do practice rituals they are not required to go anywhere, they can do it from their own home. This is why I feel that separating religion from state protects it. It gives people the right to practice whatever religion they want at their own discretion.

Arendt

I found this piece by Hannah Arendt to be more interesting than the others so far. I think because it is something similar to what we have learned about in today’s culture it makes it easier to read and easier to understand. We have learned about World War Two and about the concentration camps that the Jews were forced to go to. I think that though anti-Semitism still exists in the world, most people are disgusted by what the Nazis did to the Jews and that’s why I find this reading a little bit easier to relate to, because I am one of those people. According to Arendt, human beings in concentration camps are degraded, exterminated, and experimented on, “the camps are meant not only to exterminate people and degrade human beings, but also serve the ghastly experiment of eliminating, under scientifically controlled conditions, spontaneity itself as an expression of human behavior and transforming the human personality into a mere thing, into something that even animals are not; for Pavlov's dog, which as we know, was trained to eat not when it was hungry but when a bell rang, was a perverted animal,” (Arendt 88-89). It is very clear that she finds concentration camps and what they do to people appalling. I also think by referring to Pavlov’s dogs she is saying that human beings are being brainwashed. Though they are not being brainwashed in an indifferent way, as Pavlov’s experiment really had no effect on the dog’s life, they are being brainwashed by fear. If humans are being punished negatively for not doing something, or doing something wrong they tend to be fearful, therefore they are more likely to do what they are told and do it correctly. This gives others power and control. By writing this piece, Arendt is showing how easy it is for government to brainwash people. All they have to do is be terrifying and the people will fear them and in return do as they are asked.

Arendt, Hannah. "Total Domination" A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York; Bedford St. Martins, 2006. pp 88-96

Machiavelli

In the opening pages of this piece, it seems as if Machiavelli is insistent on warfare. It is clear that he finds war to be extremely important, but it seems as if warfare should be the only thing that a prince should be thinking about. It’s almost as if he is saying that to be a prince, you have to concentrate on war, and only war because that is the most important thing of all, “A prince, therefore, must not have any other object nor any other thought, nor must he take anything as his profession but war” (Machiavelli 36). I took this statement as basically saying, if you can’t place warfare at the top of your list, then you should not be a prince. He is also saying that it is extremely important as a Prince, to be armed, and if you are not armed then you are automatically not liked, “For among the other bad effects it causes, being disarmed makes you despised” (Machiavelli 38). I find these opinions to be very odd. Although being prepared for war is very important, I don’t think it should be the basis of a Prince’s duty. I also do not think that not being armed would make a prince less liked. I have to disagree with what Machiavelli is saying. War should not be the basis for anyone’s duty whether it is a prince, a president, or any other national leader. As I said before, being prepared for it is important, because it could happen at anytime and there needs to be an organized plan for if and when it happens, but to base principles upon it is absolutely ridiculous.

Machiavelli, Niccolo. “The Qualities of the Prince.” A World of Ideas: Essential Reading for College Writers. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York; Bedford St. Martins, 2006. pp 35-50.

Lao-Tzu

1. What is the Master's attitude toward action?

I found this reading to be a little hard to follow. However I do feel that Lao-Tzu described the Master as the ruler of China in that time period. The way he described him was interesting because it was as if the Master was letting the people act in their own ways. In a sense he was letting them decide the government on their own. At one point he says “If you want to be a great leader, you must learn to follow the Tao. Stop trying to control. Let go of fixed plans and concepts, and the world will govern itself”, (Lao-Tzu 27). This is an interesting statement to me, because it is not a concept that many think of when they think about government. What I think he is trying to say is that in order to have an effective government you can’t just control everything. People don’t like to be controlled, therefore when there is control there is bound to be rebelling. I also think what he is saying is that things are never going to be perfect, and if you have a fixed plan or concept nothing can live up to that. There is going to be disappointment if you have a certain way you want something. Not only that but, nothing can ever be set in stone in the sense that things are always going to be changing and it is much easier if you let them change on their own. The Master’s attitude towards action seems almost non-existent. It seems as if he would rather just have everything fall into place on its own.

Lao-tzu. "Thoughts From The Tao-te Ching." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. Trans. Stephen Mitchell. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. pp 22-31.